工程教育中的伦理学:ABET是否足够?

Alyssa DeLouise
{"title":"工程教育中的伦理学:ABET是否足够?","authors":"Alyssa DeLouise","doi":"10.7771/2158-4052.1555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABET is an organization that accredits college or university programs in STEM and provides quality assurance that a program meets the standards of the field or profession. According to current scholarship, there is concern that ABET accreditation has a negative impact on the transparency of syllabi and student engagement in engineering ethics. This study was designed to understand more about the relationship between ABET accreditation, syllabi design, and engineering ethics by assessing 22 syllabi from an R1 institution’s electrical and computer engineering department. These syllabi were analyzed to understand where they fall in the students’ degree path, learning outcomes, assessment processes, and whether or not they explicitly mentioned ABET. Most notably from this study, 41% of syllabi mentioned ethics, while 23% of syllabi mentioned ABET requirements. Of those that mentioned ABET, two courses were core courses and three were upper-level electives, with only one of the five syllabi mentioning ethics. These findings suggest that when ethics is prioritized in the course, ABET is not made apparent as a goal. When ABET is explicitly mentioned, it is unlikely to see ethics prioritized as well in the course. This is consistent with current scholarship that ethics is treated problematically as an add-on to courses. Future course design should focus on not just technical aspects, but also ethics and transparency around designed course outcomes and assessment. This study’s limitations include a small sample size, and possible selection bias, given that faculty voluntarily chose to participate in this study. Future research involving a larger sample and mixed methods is needed to better understand the relationship between course objectives, ABET, and ethics across engineering.","PeriodicalId":30386,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics in Engineering Education: Is ABET Enough?\",\"authors\":\"Alyssa DeLouise\",\"doi\":\"10.7771/2158-4052.1555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABET is an organization that accredits college or university programs in STEM and provides quality assurance that a program meets the standards of the field or profession. According to current scholarship, there is concern that ABET accreditation has a negative impact on the transparency of syllabi and student engagement in engineering ethics. This study was designed to understand more about the relationship between ABET accreditation, syllabi design, and engineering ethics by assessing 22 syllabi from an R1 institution’s electrical and computer engineering department. These syllabi were analyzed to understand where they fall in the students’ degree path, learning outcomes, assessment processes, and whether or not they explicitly mentioned ABET. Most notably from this study, 41% of syllabi mentioned ethics, while 23% of syllabi mentioned ABET requirements. Of those that mentioned ABET, two courses were core courses and three were upper-level electives, with only one of the five syllabi mentioning ethics. These findings suggest that when ethics is prioritized in the course, ABET is not made apparent as a goal. When ABET is explicitly mentioned, it is unlikely to see ethics prioritized as well in the course. This is consistent with current scholarship that ethics is treated problematically as an add-on to courses. Future course design should focus on not just technical aspects, but also ethics and transparency around designed course outcomes and assessment. This study’s limitations include a small sample size, and possible selection bias, given that faculty voluntarily chose to participate in this study. Future research involving a larger sample and mixed methods is needed to better understand the relationship between course objectives, ABET, and ethics across engineering.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7771/2158-4052.1555\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/2158-4052.1555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ABET是一个认证学院或大学STEM课程的组织,并提供质量保证,确保课程符合该领域或专业的标准。根据目前的学术研究,有人担心ABET认证会对教学大纲的透明度和学生对工程伦理的参与产生负面影响。本研究旨在通过评估一所R1院校电气与计算机工程系的22个教学大纲,进一步了解ABET认证、教学大纲设计和工程伦理之间的关系。对这些教学大纲进行分析,以了解它们在学生学位路径、学习成果、评估过程中的位置,以及它们是否明确提到了ABET。从这项研究中最值得注意的是,41%的教学大纲提到了伦理,而23%的教学大纲提到了ABET要求。在提到ABET的教学大纲中,有两门是核心课程,三门是高级选修课,五门教学大纲中只有一门提到了伦理学。这些发现表明,当道德在课程中被优先考虑时,ABET并没有作为一个明显的目标。当ABET被明确提到时,它不太可能在课程中优先考虑道德。这与目前的学术观点一致,即伦理学被视为课程的附加内容,存在问题。未来的课程设计不仅应该关注技术方面,还应该关注课程设计结果和评估的道德和透明度。本研究的局限性包括样本量小,考虑到教师自愿选择参加本研究,可能存在选择偏差。未来的研究需要涉及更大的样本和混合方法,以更好地理解课程目标、ABET和工程伦理之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethics in Engineering Education: Is ABET Enough?
ABET is an organization that accredits college or university programs in STEM and provides quality assurance that a program meets the standards of the field or profession. According to current scholarship, there is concern that ABET accreditation has a negative impact on the transparency of syllabi and student engagement in engineering ethics. This study was designed to understand more about the relationship between ABET accreditation, syllabi design, and engineering ethics by assessing 22 syllabi from an R1 institution’s electrical and computer engineering department. These syllabi were analyzed to understand where they fall in the students’ degree path, learning outcomes, assessment processes, and whether or not they explicitly mentioned ABET. Most notably from this study, 41% of syllabi mentioned ethics, while 23% of syllabi mentioned ABET requirements. Of those that mentioned ABET, two courses were core courses and three were upper-level electives, with only one of the five syllabi mentioning ethics. These findings suggest that when ethics is prioritized in the course, ABET is not made apparent as a goal. When ABET is explicitly mentioned, it is unlikely to see ethics prioritized as well in the course. This is consistent with current scholarship that ethics is treated problematically as an add-on to courses. Future course design should focus on not just technical aspects, but also ethics and transparency around designed course outcomes and assessment. This study’s limitations include a small sample size, and possible selection bias, given that faculty voluntarily chose to participate in this study. Future research involving a larger sample and mixed methods is needed to better understand the relationship between course objectives, ABET, and ethics across engineering.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信